Print to PDF

01/19/2012

Don't Use Pay As A Babysitter

Have you ever used a babysitter? This is when you have someone else assume your responsibilities while you take a break and focus on something else. The babysitter stands in for you, is you during the period of your absence.

Typically we think of babysitting when there’s a dependent child involved, but in the workplace it’s not uncommon for ineffective managers to use the same concept when dealing with their employees. These managers seek to use the pay that their employees receive as a surrogate for leadership – for keeping those workers complacent, retained and generally “in line.”

The practice of manipulating rewards presumes that the employee will chase the money, and will be happy with their lot, while at the same time will not require much in the way of supervision, periodic direction or even meaningful conversation. The thinking here is that, if I provide you with enough reward you will act as desired in order to not jeopardize those payments. The goal is to place the employee’s attitude and performance on automatic pilot while the manager is engaged elsewhere.

So far, so good. Not necessarily a problem. The red flag goes up the pole when you consider whether these monies are warranted by either performance or business need, or are they simply bribes?

What are we talking about?

Scenarios where pay is used in lieu of actual management are easy to spot.

The Grand Giveaway: Where managers try to give away as much money as they can to as many as possible, not worrying overmuch with distinctions between individual performances. The key is to build an employee's appreciation of their manager’s largesse.

Title inflation: The promise of bloated and meaningless titles that distort organizational structures, for the prime purpose of rewarding employees in lieu of cash.

Over rated performance: Playing the good guy by over-rating performance during salary reviews. Culprits are often seen rewarding activity over results. So look busy!

Assured compensation: Take the risk out of rewards and encourage an attitude of entitlement. Everybody receives an annual merit raise, everyone earns a bonus.

Counter-offers: “Let’s make a deal” attitude to keep resigning employees from actually leaving; a dangerous practice that increases costs and lowers morale.

What’s the cause of this behavior? Managers typically receive inadequate training (if any) on how to use their company’s pay programs, so many use pay as a crutch. Spending the company’s money effectively and efficiently isn’t on the radar screen. They use pay like a club to get an employee’s attention. And once they have it the manager is off doing something else – with the presumption that pay will substitute as supervision and motivation while the manager is absent – kind of like a babysitter.

Weak and ineffectual managers don’t actually manage their employees, in the sense of performance direction, leadership, setting good examples and decision-making. Instead, they want to be liked. They want to avoid conflict and they don’t want anyone to quit. They want employees to get along, and to help foster a friendly team atmosphere they try to manipulate pay in support of their efforts.

It’s really kind of a bribe.

So what is “managing” to these people? It’s not about making hard decisions. Too often it’s trying to get the most for their employees, deserved or otherwise, whether the organization gains in the process or not. The manager is focused on their own interests, and is using someone else’s money to fund their behavior.

Why it doesn’t work

Relying on pay as a replacement for management has a short effective life cycle.

Employees see arbitrary same-same pay treatment as de-motivating to high performers. Why bother extending yourself if you’re going to receive the same reward as the guy doing crossword puzzles?

Employees resent favored-son treatment and those who benefit for non-performance reasons will always become known. There goes your morale.

No amount of money replaces the value of honest performance direction and feedback. Those with an interest in learning and growing appreciate the help.

Absentee managers lose the respect of their employees, who know what’s going on. Remember that employees leave managers, not companies.

For managers who need a crutch to help motivate and retain their employees, to help them do their jobs, the above cautions likely won’t make a difference. Their goal is not to manage, but to get-by, to be liked by their employees and to avoid disruptions to their routine. This is not leadership, but administration.

But for those managers who wish to make a difference, who understand that managing employees is a challenging and rewarding role, abrogating responsibility through babysitting is not an option. They recognize it as the opposite of management, a damaging practice that will not enhance anyone’s long term career prospects.

Chuck Csizmar CCP is founder and Principal of CMC Compensation Group, providing global compensation consulting services to a wide variety of industries and non-profit organizations. He is also associated with several HR Consulting firms as a contributing consultant. Chuck is a broad based subject matter expert with a specialty in international and expatriate compensation. He lives in Central Florida (near The Mouse) and enjoys growing fruit and managing (?) a brood of cats.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This is an important topic. While admittedly some managers have had inadequate training in basic supervision, the vast majority simply choose to ignore the recommended disciplined methods because they are hard, uncomfortable and painful in the short run. Pay programs are most frequently used as an excuse for bad management because it's easier and frequently better for the boss that way.

Those who run a comfortable overstaffed country club with low expectations and high pay will gain a following of supporters, even among executives who will grant them more status and fat bonuses for positive morale, high retention, bigger payroll budgets and low turnover. Of course, their oversized and underproductive empires will tend to crumble eventually, but most escape by promotion or jump ship before it sinks.

Top management doesn't hold them fully accountable for human resource management because there is a separate department for that! Remember, most MBA courses spend more time on finance courses than on compensation (if at all). Performance management is becoming a lost art, omitted from academic classes and dropped from certification programs. Leaders who don't practice good leadership habits are the biggest problem already, and it will only get worse. It's basic Pipe/Mager stuff, dealing with the balance of consequences.

Great article! I worked for a manager that operated this way. Throwing money at us didn't work for me - that's not what motivated me. But the more I tried to explain that the more I came to realize that the manager just didn't want to be bothered. This wasn't good for morale and everyone started leaving pretty quickly. THis can be a costly mistake for an organization and you explain very well why this is so.